Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I note that my partner and comanager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, and I are here and ready to do business. We were ready to do business yesterday. We had one rollcall vote. There were more than 40 amendments filed yesterday. I know there are many others who have or are thinking about amendments. But we have enough work to do now if Members will come forward and offer their amendments that are filed or talk with us to see if they can be accepted.

We would like very much to move forward on this bill today, and perhaps complete work on it by 8 o'clock tonight when the baseball game is on television. But hope springs eternal. We would love to see Members come forward. I think more are ready to go.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there has been much discussion with many Members who are interested in this. I am filing it now, and I will ask unanimous consent that others who wish to be added as original cosponsors add their names. But I wanted to get it here on the floor so everybody could have a chance to look at it. We will shortly set it aside because I think we are perhaps ready to go forward with the minimum wage amendments.

At this point, permit me to explain what the amendment is about.

This amendment is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al., in which the Court upheld by a 5- to-4 majority decision the use of eminent domain by the city of New London, CT. The Court noted that New London utilized a comprehensive plan that seeks to revitalize the city by using the land occupied by some 115 privately owned properties as well as 32 acres of land formally occupied by a naval facility to accommodate a $300 million Pfizer research facility, a waterfront conference hotel, a ``small urban village,'' as well as 80 new residences. The opinion seems to rely on ``affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.''

The opinion also notes that nothing precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.

As discussed by the four-Justice dissenting opinion, this majority opinion goes much farther than the facts of the case and would essentially allow the use of eminent domain in virtually any circumstance where the locality believes some benefit could be derived.

In particular, the four-Justice dissenting opinion concludes that ``under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to a owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.''

There are a number of problems that have already been raised in the eminent domain field. I say none are more striking than the proposal by a developer to condemn the land on which the home of one of the Justices in the majority opinion sits to put a new hotel and the Lost Freedom Bar on his property.

In my State of Missouri, we have seen the use of eminent domain for a private purpose having tremendously harmful impacts in the Sunset Hills community in St. Louis County. Eminent domain was used by a private developer to condemn a large number of homes, forcing the residents out of their homes. The residents, in expectation of being forced out of their homes, purchased other houses. They began to move into other houses. The private developer went broke. Now these people are stuck with two mortgages, and the place they left is being declared a blighted area because everybody has left.

This has had a double impact, not only on the homeowners who were forced to take out a second mortgage but on a community which now is blighted, and some enterprising developers are seeking tax subsidies and other help to renovate a blighted property.

I believe most of us--and certainly the people I listen to in my home State of Missouri--believe this is absolutely wrong.

When you look at the New London case, you see how a tragic result can occur under the Kelo decision if legislatures do not act. The Governor of Missouri has called for a task force to study eminent domain.

I believe we have responsibility here to make sure that Federal funds are not used in the taking of property for a private use and utilizing Federal funds to bolster that effort.

In the Kelo case, the dissenting opinion notes that the petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in one of the neighborhoods subject to eminent domain. One of the petitioners lived in the house that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918. Her husband has lived there since their marriage in 1946, and their petitioner son lives next door with his family. Moreover, the record makes no claim that these are anything but well-maintained houses that do not pose any source of social harm, unlike the circumstances of several earlier cases cited in the majority opinion.

The opinion warns that despite the majority opinion's reliance on the city's comprehensive plan, there is nothing in the majority opinion that prohibits property transfers generated with less care, that are less comprehensive, that happen to result from a less elaborate process, where the only projected advantage is the incidence of higher taxes or the hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even more prosperous one.

Despite my misgivings about the Kelo case and its implications, this amendment today is very narrow and merely limits the availability of Federal funds from within this act for the year for which it is applicable for use in funding eminent domain activities. The key issue in this amendment is that these funds should not be used to provide Federal support for eminent domain activities that primarily benefit private entities. The amendment recognizes the importance of supporting eminent domain activities in support of transportation projects, utility projects, and projects to remedy blight. Funds may still be used from the Federal sources in this act for these projects.

Moreover, the amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study that analyzes the use of eminent domain throughout the Nation, as well as the results accomplished by these uses of eminent domain.

I know some of my colleagues are proposing significant substantive authorizing legislation which would have a much broader band. This objective is worthwhile. I hope to join them at a later stage. This is just a starting step. It is a starting point to make sure eminent domain for private purposes is not funded in the coming year from funds from the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies bill.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. It establishes a very important principle. I hope to have a very solid vote for this amendment when it comes to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Washington. There are other amendments that are going to be offered, and at the appropriate time I will ask this be set aside so further amendments can be offered.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. As I mentioned, this is an appropriations bill. It is a very important subject he has raised, but I raise a point of order under rule XVI that this is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be set aside so we can work out a time for a vote on the measure.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I believe there are some on this side who will want to respond. I hope we can get a tight timeframe because we are going to be very busy this week. We have to finish this measure.

Amendment No. 2113

Mr. President, now, since it appears we are going to be having some action today, I ask unanimous consent that we bring up the amendment filed this morning, amendment No. 2113. I believe it can be adopted by a voice vote, with Senators who wish to speak on it permitted to speak during time later on today.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I look forward to action on the bill.

Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 of the 109th Congress, the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in this amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be set aside to be set for a vote at a time determined by the leaders on both sides.

Madam President, there is time to speak. We would be happy to find the time for the distinguished Senator from Washington to speak. We are just asking this be set aside. If the objection is sustained, we will go immediately to a vote and get it out of the way.

Madam President, I believe that is correct.

Madam President, before I yield the floor to the other Senators who wish to speak, first, let me point out that while LIHEAP is a very important subject, it has nothing to do with this bill. There will be the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor next week. There will also be a supplemental bill which will deal with it. While I am a big supporter of LIHEAP, this measure should be appropriately discussed in the forum where LIHEAP is handled. Either one of those two vehicles is appropriate.

Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment No. 2063, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Enzi amendment No. 2115. I further ask consent that prior to those votes there be 3 hours for debate equally divided between Senators Enzi and Kennedy to run concurrently on both the Enzi and Kennedy amendments; provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes. I further ask consent that if either amendment does not have 60 votes in the affirmative, that amendment then be automatically withdrawn or fall to the point of order, if applicable. I further ask consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

No objection.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment is an unfunded mandate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are going to clear a number of amendments, including the amendment by the Senator from Iowa. The ranking member and I were going to clear a number of amendments and agree to them one at a time. Did the Senator have a very brief statement which he wants to make on that or does he want to speak for a longer time?

Mr. President, on that assumption, we will defer to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, we believe the amendment of the Senator from Iowa makes good sense. It has been cleared on both sides. I believe it can be agreed to by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have a number of amendments which have been cleared on both sides. We propose to bring them up individually and ask for their immediate consideration and a voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments in order to offer those amendments.

First, I call up amendment 2070 on behalf of Senator Collins. This amendment would repeal the increased limit on the micropurchase threshold on Government credit cards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Akaka.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment requires the IRS to submit a report on the debt indicator program which is currently used by the IRS to assist in tax filing and speeding up tax refunds where applicable. Senator Akaka has raised legitimate concerns on whether the debt indicator has led to the abuse of certain refund loans. While there are legitimate and appropriate refund loans, there is, unfortunately, some abuse of them. We need to address this problem.

This amendment has been modified after discussion with our staff and the IRS.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. It requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and FAA, to establish procedures to deal with airline passengers who have avian flu symptoms.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on a lighter note, I understand that David Letterman last night said there had been an instance of avian flu being transmitted to human beings. He also noted that several Astros had come into contact with the Cardinals on Monday night and suffered greatly. Fortunately, I hope that epidemic only returns tonight and tomorrow night.

Amendment No. 2073, as Modified

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2073, and I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as a result of BRAC decisions, the military is reconsidering closing the Army Radar Approach Control at Fort Sill,

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Stabenow and ask it be considered.

Mr. President, this amendment deals with the HUD elderly demonstration program. It provides a set-aside out of HUD's 202 elderly housing program to fund the legacy housing program which provides for intergenerational housing units to assist low-income grandparents who are heads of households. This program was enacted in 2003. It seems to make eminent good sense to me.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2072 on behalf of Senator Craig, and I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

I ask that Senator Murray be added as a cosponsor.

The amendment clarifies the non-Federal share for certain funding. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

I ask my colleague if she wishes to make any comments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, not having had a chance to review the entire workings of the amendment, this is a very serious legislative amendment. Unfortunately, this is not the appropriate place to raise this legislation. It is more appropriately concerned with the Energy Committee or other committees. I, therefore, raise a point of order that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. I believe now the Chair has a copy of the amendment. I raise an objection under rule XVI that this is legislation on an appropriations bill.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I understand this amendment is necessary because in some homeless shelters, children are being sent to schools where they have not been going. It has caused a great deal of confusion. This is an appropriate measure and we accept it on this side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate turn to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider an original bill to comply with the Committee's reconciliation instructions as contained in H. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of this meeting is to consider reconciliation legislation and any other pending calendar business which may be ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq in U.S. Foreign Policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19th, at 2 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Reporters' Privilege Legislation: An Additional Investigation of Issues and Implications'' on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of the United States Department of Justice Houston, TX.

Panel II: Judith Miller, Investigative Reporter and Senior Writer, The New York Times, New York, NY; David Westin, President, ABC News, New York, NY; Joseph E. diGenova, Founding Partner, diGenova & Toensing LLP, Washington, DC; Anne Gordon, Managing Editor, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA; Dale Davenport, Editorial Page Editor, The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA; and Steven D. Clymer, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall, Ithaca, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, to conduct a hearing on ``Video Competition in 2005--More Consolidation, or New Choices for Consumers?'' at 2 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Mr. Glenn Britt, Chairman and CEO, Time Warner Cable, Stamford; CT; Mr. Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, NCTA, Washington, DC; Mr. Walter McCormick, Jr., President and CEO, United States Telecom Association, Washington, DC; Mr. Doron Gorshein, President and CEO, The America Channel, LLC, Heathrow, FL; Mr. Peter Aquino, President and CEO, RCN Corporation, Herndon, VA; Mr. Scott Cleland, Chief Executive Officer, Precursor, Washington, DC; and Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this side in morning business.

Mr. President, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and related agencies bill is now back on the floor. At 11 o'clock it is my understanding that by previous order we will go to consideration of the DC appropriations bill, which will be included as a separate part of this legislation because the House has the two functions of DC and Treasury, Transportation, HUD as one bill. Those, it is my understanding, will be conferenced separately but at the same time so that the final conference report will bring back Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the District of Columbia appropriations.

The important thing to note is my partner and colleague in this effort, the ranking member, the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray and I, have asked our colleagues to bring to the floor the amendments they wish to offer for this T-T-H-U-D or TTHUD bill. We will be having a vote on the pending amendment, the Kyl amendment, at 10 minutes after 12. The amendment relates to the cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress.

It is important to note that both sides agree we want to move quickly. We want to know what amendments there are. We are seeking a time deadline for filing those amendments so our staff can go to work on them.

We believe there will be time this evening for staff to consider them. It is possible we will be able to take some of these amendments and conclude this bill sometime this week. It is very important we get this moving because we are now in the new fiscal year. We are operating on a continuing resolution and we have many important items in this bill and the DC bill that need to be put into law so we are operating on fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the year.

As my colleague was kind enough to mention yesterday, there was an athletic contest in Houston last night in which Albert Pujols managed to keep the St. Louis Cardinals alive. I am currently in a good mood and ready to accept as many amendments as possible. While I have great hopes for continued success, this is the best time to catch me in a good mood. And the Senator from Washington is in a good mood. This is the time to bring the amendments forward. We will be happy to work with our colleagues to try to find ways to accept as many amendments as possible.

In any event, I know there will be some amendments that will require votes. We would like to have them brought to our attention as soon as possible in order for us to set a schedule enabling us to finish this bill, we hope well before the end of this week. We have many other important measures to work on and we will have to have a number of votes. We look forward to having those amendments before us. This is an urgent request to my colleagues who have amendments to the TTHUD bill to bring them to the floor and to share them with the managers on both sides of the aisle.

With that, I thank my colleagues and ask that they bring those amendments down.

Seeing no other speakers wishing to take the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are back on the Treasury-Transportation- Housing and Urban Development bill. The minority Member, my partner, Senator Murray, and I are ready to do business. I understand we are waiting for final negotiations from both sides on the potential two votes that we hope will be ready to be put forward early this afternoon. As soon as we know something about that and can reach an agreement, we will advise all Senators.

In the meantime, the Kennedy amendment on minimum wage is pending. We expect there will be an alternative amendment which will be proposed, and that will be voted on right after or right before the Kennedy amendment.

We ask all Members who have an amendment they want to file to please bring it in, and we hope we can work it out with them. If it is something that can be accepted, we would like to do so because we need to finish this bill--the sooner the better.

The leaders have advised us that we will be in this week and weekend until we finish the bill. My personal preference would be to finish it this week and not on Friday afternoon or Saturday.

It would be very helpful if they would bring in those amendments. Very shortly, we will be conferring with leadership on both sides to establish an agreed-upon deadline for filing all first-degree amendments.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment, the Kennedy amendment, be temporarily set aside.

Mr. President, I have another technical amendment to offer at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is rather technical, but it has to do with public housing authorities and their ability to use future Section 8 vouchers on project-based assistance needs. As many know, in the past public housing was constructed when the assistance was tied to the project rather than to an individual. That enabled the public housing authority or other entity to get financing to build the units and then receive the income from the Federal housing assistance.

Right now, there is a process for refining the allocation of Section 8 vouchers to public housing authorities so they do not have unused Section 8 vouchers. That has been a good thing because that means the money for housing assistance goes to those who most need it. However, the problem arises when public housing authorities need to put aside or shelve some of the needed Section 8 certificates or vouchers allocated to them in order to provide a basis of funding for construction of additional housing.

In some areas--I know in my State and across the country--we can hand out all of the Section 8 vouchers we want for people needing housing assistance, and they do not do much good because there is not housing available. So we have to have the flexibility for the public housing authorities to take some of the vouchers allocated to them and say: We will commit them to this project in order to build the housing we need.

This amendment includes funding for the projected use of Section 8 project assistance needs of public housing agencies. Normally, for developing housing within the project-based assistance, PHA would shelve the needed vouchers for the 1- to 3-year development timeline for an assisted project. Under the current approach for funding vouchers designed to assure that there were no Section 8 certificates wasted, the projected funding needs related to project-based vouchers would not be funded, thus removing the incentive or the ability to develop Section 8 housing, regardless of need.

We believe this amendment will ensure that the planned use of project-based vouchers is funded without prejudice, thus allowing the local public housing authorities in communities across the country to develop project-based assisted housing where there is not otherwise housing needed for the people who are homeless, who need better shelter in the area.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank all of my colleagues. If any colleagues have compelling statements related to this issue which may be important in their States, we are happy to have those added to the Record with this vote. Again, we await the arrival of others with amendments on which we can work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is very interesting to hear this speech on energy. There were a couple of things my colleague from Illinois said that I agree with. No. 1, energy prices are a real problem. No. 2, LIHEAP needs to

be reviewed by the appropriate Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee. No. 3, the good things we are doing in ethanol and biodiesel need to continue. No. 4, maybe he did not say it on the floor, but he and I both agree on the St. Louis Cardinals. That is about the extent of the things I could find on which we agree.

Let me go through a few of them. First, all of us are paying more at the gasoline pump. This is having a conservation impact. People are driving less. Everybody is thinking about how they can take fewer trips. Certainly we are in our family. I believe the statistics show that people are conserving more. Talk about turning back your heat during the winter, we are one of those families--I think it is 57 percent of the families in the United States--who heat with natural gas. That thermostat is not going to go down a couple of degrees; it is going to go down more than that. We are going to be pulling out the sweaters.

There are some people who cannot do anything about it. There are workers who have to travel on jobs. There are small businesses that are trying to keep their businesses going. There are famers who have to keep up with those prices. This is a real concern for our economy. For small businesses that will be hit by increased costs of energy for operating their business, my colleague seems to want to add a minimum wage increase. When your margins are being squeezed by energy costs, what happens if the minimum wage goes up? Those young people, the people just starting out in the business, the people who might be getting minimum wage--and it is down around 6 percent of workers these days--are probably going to be the ones let go. The people who need to get a start in the process, who need to get a job, are the ones who are going to lose their jobs because the minimum wage is going to put a further squeeze on the profits of small businesses. To see a requirement that they pay a higher cost for entry-level workers is either going to eliminate existing jobs or certainly stifle the creation of new jobs.

For those people on minimum wage, for those families, we have the earned-income tax credit; we have all forms of assistance and this is proper. We need to help those people get started because a significant number, an overwhelming number of those starting with the minimum wage get a 10-percent increase at the end of the first year. They have to learn to work, and that is how they get started.

Let's go back to the problems we have with energy. We have real problems in energy that came about even before Katrina and Rita hit our refineries and hit the gulf coast. We concentrated our petroleum production mainly in the gulf coast region around Texas and Louisiana. Why? Because too many people said, No, you can't drill here. In other places where we have oil and gas, they are being prohibited from drilling. People say we can't drill for natural gas off the coast, and I say, Why not? We have to do so in an environmentally sound manner. We have to protect the environment. But siting a natural gas rig 15 miles out in the sea, if it is done in an environmentally sound way, is not threatening the way of life of people along our coast.

The occupant of the chair and I happen to come from a State where we mine a lot of lead. Lead mining is environmentally difficult. Everybody knows the problems lead can cause, but lead is absolutely critical in many of the goods we produce, computers, and other things. So we produce much of the lead in the United States because we have 90 percent of the lead that exists in the United States. I have told some of my friends who do not want to drill for natural gas in their States or off their shores, we in Missouri would be happy to trade you our lead for your natural gas. You can mine for the lead and we will be happy to pump the natural gas. Natural resources have to be developed where they are found.

Ten years ago, we passed a bill authorizing the opening up of that small portion, and only a fraction of that small portion, set aside in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the development of natural resources. When ANWR was set up, there was a portion set aside specifically for the development of natural resources. To the west of there in Prudhoe Bay, they are producing oil in substantial amounts. The best estimates we have heard is that if we had gone ahead, if the President 10 years ago had not vetoed the opening up of ANWR, we would be getting over 900,000 barrels of oil a day from the ANWR. That is not going to solve all of our problems, but it is certainly a start. Regrettably, it is a lot more than even our farmers can produce in terms of ethanol and biodiesel.

We need to pursue every area. That includes conservation. That includes new sources. That includes developing additional resources that we have in the United States. Right now, because we are busily engaged in a bill that primarily doesn't have anything to do with energy--and I remind my colleagues this is the TTHUD appropriations bill. We are talking about appropriations for Treasury, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. My colleague and I are looking forward to having amendments on that bill and also the Judiciary and related agencies.

There is a hearing going on in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I would love to be there because the chairman has proposed a bill to fast-track permitting for refineries. It can take up to 20 years to get a refinery built. It is too costly. Our refinery capacity for petroleum products has been stretched to the limit. When Katrina and Rita knocked out those facilities, we found ourselves in a terrible shortage. We need to streamline the process, go through all the steps but do so in an orderly manner so we can bring more refineries online in an efficient and environmentally friendly way.

Incidentally, what we need to do in that fast-track permit is to fast-track permitting of coal liquefaction and coal gasification. We are sitting on a 250-year supply of energy in the form of coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal has been a problem because, when you burn it as we have in the past, it produces sulfur, nitrous oxides, carbon, and mercury. But the coal we have in the Midwest, while it is high in sulfur, is high in Btu, and it can be turned into gas or turned into diesel fuel or aviation fuel in a way that removes almost all, if not all, of the pollutants.

We need to get coal refineries putting online plants to replace the natural gas that is being burned in utility boilers. Wasting natural gas in utility boilers has come home to roost. Twenty-five years ago, I heard Glenn Seaborg, a Nobel Prize winner, talking about energy. He said there are some people who want to burn natural gas in combustion boilers to produce energy. He said using natural gas for that purpose is similar to taking your most prized piece of antique furniture and throwing it in the fireplace to keep you warm. That is a bad use.

But environmental policies without considering energy impacts forced most of the new electric generating plants in the last decade to come online on natural gas. All those who are heating with natural gas are paying the price now. We can get a replacement for that natural gas by using gasified coal, but we need to do so pretty darned quick.

We need to open up areas for the production of natural gas. One of the things we should remember is that the natural gas problem, the crisis we face, is not only brought about by constriction and restriction on the ability to produce the natural gas that exists off our coasts, in our Federal land, in the resource-producing areas set aside when ANWR was developed, but we are also facing a natural gas crisis because we have forced utility companies to burn natural gas to produce electricity. We need to be smarter and replace that natural gas with coal gas.

We also have had hysteria over nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly, cheapest way to produce electricity. Thanks to the Energy bill we passed, we are moving ahead to develop new nuclear power. Our nuclear power facilities are getting old. There has never been a death; they are the safest means of energy production we have. Look at France, not an area we normally cite as an example, but 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear. We need to go back to development of the new style, safe nuclear powerplants, and bring them online as quickly as we can.

My colleague had some interesting ideas. I am not surprised the leadership

of the other party would come forth with taxes and windfall profits and ideas such as that, that might sound good, unless you study economics. Then you wonder, when was it that we passed a law making profits illegal? We do have laws. We have laws against restraint of trade. We have laws against price fixing, that say you cannot gain a profit by agreeing with your competitor to fix prices. We have unfair competition laws on the books at the FTC, and many States do, about price gouging. But profits, No. 1, are taxed and, No. 2, are supposed to be providing the investment we make in the new facilities, for example to produce more oil and gas and coal, to refine it and to deliver it to market.

Profiteering--I am not exactly sure at what level making a profit is improper or illegal. I have spent a lot of time as a lawyer on legal cases coming out many years ago on the windfall profits tax, and I found for law firms, litigating windfall profits is a multiyear endeavor with more funds expended on lawyers than recovered. It is not an easy process and not one for which I would argue.

Also, the suggestion has been made that we ought to establish higher CAFE standards. We have had that debate. We have had that debate a number of times. If I remember correctly, a bipartisan majority got behind something called the Bond-Levin or the Levin-Bond amendment, which said we need to increase our fuel efficiency standards, but we should not make the same mistakes we made originally. Yes, when we passed CAFE standards, one of the ways the CAFE standards were met were car companies building lighter weight cars, 1,000 or 2,000 pounds lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said between 1,600 and 2,000 people a year are killed on the highways solely because of the lighter cars.

Yes, more cars are being imported, consumers are seeing more cars coming in from abroad, and they are demanding more fuel-efficient cars, such as hybrid cars, and that is good. But we passed a law mandating the NHTSA to increase the fuel standards as rapidly as technology will permit them to increase those standards without endangering the lives of the passengers by making lighter weight vehicles. So we do have an agency looking out for safety, looking out for the technical advances. Technology has already warranted their increasing the fuel mileage on light trucks and other autos.

If you want to, I guess my colleagues on the other side could come out and pass a law banning hybrids, saying you cannot buy an SUV, you can't buy a small truck. Maybe you would have to get a permit if you were a farmer. That is the way they did it in the Soviet Union. You only got a truck if the government decided you needed a truck. I am not sure we want to go down that path, saying we are going to tell you what kind of truck you can have, and if you have a large family and want to be able to transport them to school, to church, to health care, to see other family members, the Government is going to decide how big a car or how big an SUV you can have. If they want to debate that I would be happy to do that. But as long as we are selling cars and trucks that consumers want, I think pushing the technology as fast as we can is a responsible way to get there.

Yes, I also agree we ought to consider LIHEAP increases to help low- income seniors. That is good. We need to push ethanol and biodiesel. The occupant of the chair was successful in getting the amendment adopted that mandated 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels be used by 2012. All of these things are important. I believe we must get a good refinery bill fast-tracking refineries.

In the meantime, as we think about all these energy problems, I hope my colleagues will come forward with their amendments to this bill, as I mentioned a long time ago, the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Judiciary.

Let us see if we can't get some amendments on this bill and move forward with that.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had not intended to extend this wonderful discussion because we were trying to get amendments on the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Judiciary bill. I invite people to come down and offer amendments. However, since my colleague and neighbor brought it up, I thought I might mention a few things.

No. 1, while he might want to root for the White Sox in the World Series, I was hoping he would not neglect and disregard and disrespect all of our wonderful Illinois neighbors who live in the southern part of the State who are St.

Louis Cardinal fans. It is with a heavy heart that I tell the people of southern Illinois that the Cardinal fans have been ``dissed'' by my colleague from across the river.

I wouldn't normally do that, but since he misquoted what I said, I thought I might as well take the same liberties and misquote what he had to say.

First, right there at the end I thought we were almost opening a new front in this debate. Wal-Mart bashing; oh, that is a great liberal sport these days, bashing Wal-Mart. I saw just the hint of Wal-Mart bashing. But I am sorry, I didn't mean to attribute that to my colleague. He walked away from it. So we are not into Wal-Mart bashing. But he did say I wasn't interested in conservation or energy efficiency. Perhaps the reason he didn't vote for the Bond-Levin or Levin-Bond amendments to conserve energy and assure energy efficiency is he didn't understand that we ordered the scientists at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find the new technologies and require that fuel efficiency improvements be made as technological advances go forward.

That is the whole idea.

How about letting the scientists say what technology actually works? It is a lot more fun on the stump making a political speech saying we are going to double the mileage--and, by the way, forget about it if the lighter cars do kill more people. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has produced those figures: the lighter cars have been killing more people.

The third thing he said was we are going to waive all the environmental rules. We have had continually improving air quality in this country. We are making progress, and we are continuing to make progress. That is extremely important.

Are we going to get rid of the standards? No. How about getting the number of processes? One refinery had 800 different permitting processes to go through. How many different permitting processes do you have to go through? We need to hold these refineries or other new facilities to the standards we are setting to make air cleaner. When government bureaucracy and lawsuits tell them how to build and how to operate the facilities, we get tremendous waste. This is why I am talking about economics. Economics is bringing about conservation, as is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as are other conservation measures--new appliances with conservation standards.

Each one of us has the ability, in responding to the marketplace as to the price of energy, to make wise decisions about energy usage. The market does work.

If my colleague wants to have an allocation system to tell the American public what kind of cars and trucks they can buy and dictate what cars, trucks, and SUVs can be made by auto manufacturers, let's have that debate. In the meantime, let us all concede that the auto companies may have missed the mood. They may have made mistakes. They are paying for those mistakes in misjudging the market. But I would rather have the private sector taking the hit because they are in it for the profit motive, and they can afford it, rather than have the government make those decisions which cost jobs, which cost our economy.

I am hoping a Member will have an additional amendment. I will look for that.

I do not intend to answer my colleague from Illinois any further other than to say that if he cites my position, I will probably disagree with his characterization of my position. But we will have this debate perhaps again when we have an honest to goodness Energy bill, maybe one that fast-tracks refineries that would get us the oil, diesel, aviation fuel, and the coal gas we need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, here it is quarter to 6 on the day after this bill has come to the floor. We have had two votes on technical amendments. We have another technical amendment we can offer. But my colleagues have filed about 40 amendments. While there are discussions going on over two different minimum wage amendments, we have set those aside in order for us to go back to work on other amendments relating to this bill. I ask on behalf of leadership on this side and my partner that Members who have amendments which they have filed to please come forward and offer those they wish to offer, or talk with us about ones that might be acceptable.

The leader said we are going to be here this week until we finish this bill. It is my hope, with the tremendous workload we have to accomplish, if we are to get out of here prior to Thanksgiving, that we move forward on this bill. We will be ready for business tomorrow morning. If Members do not come forward, my colleague and I will consider asking the bill go to third reading.

We still have time to deal with another amendment tonight if anyone wishes to come in and bring it before us. Otherwise, I would ask all our colleagues who want to pursue amendments which they have filed to come forward and do so tomorrow.

It is possible, if they will do so in an orderly manner and tell us which ones they do not wish to pursue, we could finish this tomorrow night and be ready to move on to the many other challenging pieces of legislation and appropriations measures we have to deal with.

This is an urgent request to Members on both sides who have amendments filed to come forward--staff met with us on those amendments--and let us know which ones they wish to pursue.

We are operating on a continuing resolution for all of the important agencies covered by this bill. Many of these agencies truly need the new appropriations for fiscal year 2006 in which we are operating. Some of the provisions we have in this bill will significantly improve the operation of the Federal Government.

It is going to be a very difficult bill to conference because of the different parts of it. It is going to take us several weeks to complete the conference on the bill. We cannot go to conference until this bill is passed. With any amendments that are agreed to after this, we still believe this is important for the functioning of the Federal Government and the service it provides.

There is much talk about Amtrak and what we need to do on Amtrak. Let us be clear: There are some Amtrak reforms in this bill. They do not go as far as we would hope to see in Amtrak legislation which is coming out of the Commerce Committee. It should be debated on this floor. But it will provide $1.45 billion for the operation of Amtrak and begin to reform some of the significant problems we see in Amtrak. For those who are interested in improving the operation of the passenger rail service, I hope you will join with us in moving forward to completion of this bill so we can get the Amtrak funding done and those reforms which are included in this bill. The system will work better if this measure is passed.

Similarly, for the Treasury Department, we are funding vitally needed resources to stop illicit financing of the terror trade. The Treasury has an important responsibility to do that. That is in our national interest.

We have additional funds available to make sure that the taxes already on the books and owed are collected.

Obviously, for housing, there are many important things for taking care of the needs of those who need assisted housing.

The Judiciary has important measures in it as do the other related agencies.

It is time we move forward on this bill. We reported it out of committee in July. It is now here on the floor and ready to go. We earnestly ask that our colleagues join us and offer amendments, debate them, if necessary, and we will vote on them so we can move this bill to conference and get on with the business of the Federal Government.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment to reform the judiciary's ability to procure things. It is a procurement authority. The amendment actually establishes greater parity for the judicial branch by giving it the same procurement authorities that were given to the executive branch through acquisition reform legislation in the 1990s. We found this saved money. It gives the taxpayers a better bang for their buck. They can procure over several years.

Currently, the judiciary's procurement authority is limited when compared to the executive branch. This limitation increases the cost of doing business. Specifically, these limitations are on multiyear contracting, severable services contracts, and the timing of contract payments and, thus, prevent the judicial branch from taking advantage of the best prices offered for some goods and services. As an example, a typical information technology contract will extend for several years. It is far more efficient for the executive branch and it is more efficient for the judicial branch to be able to make these contracts over several years.

Simply put, this amendment gives the judicial branch authority it should already possess, and I believe makes good business sense for the American taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague.

We are still open for business--maybe not for much longer--but I hope all Senators will take the fact that we intend to either vote on amendments tomorrow or have third reading. It doesn't make any difference to us one way or the other. We want to finish this bill.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it appears that action for the day on the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill has come to a close. I ask once again that our colleagues be prepared to offer amendments tomorrow or we will ask to go to third reading.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 18, 2005, at 10 a.m., to mark up S. 1562, ``Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005,'' and an original bill entitled ``FHA Asset Disposition Act of 2005,'' for purposes of reporting the text of both bills to the Senate Budget Committee as Title II for reconciliation purposes. Immediately following the markup, the Committee will conduct a hearing on ``The Future of the National Flood Insurance Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 18, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Growth and Development of the Derivatives Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the winter fuels outlook and the effect of high prices this coming winter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18 at 3 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider our national capacity for producing technological innovation and the importance of this innovation to our global economic competitiveness. The Committee will hear testimony describing the results of a recently released National Academy of Science report on this same topic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting on October 18, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to consider a bill, S. ----, to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to make technical corrections.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on October 18, 2005 at 2:35 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing on S. 1772, the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of James S. Halpern, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court, The Judiciary; Susan C. Schwab, to be Deputy United States Trade Representative, with the Rank of Ambassador, executive Office of the President; Karen K. Bhatia, to be Deputy United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador, Executive Office of the President; Franklin L. Lavin, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, Department of Commerce, and, Clay Lowery, to be Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of Treasury.

The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Prospects for United Nations Reform.

The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform II'' on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of the Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Frank Sharry, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC; Douglas S. Massey, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Members of Congress.

Panel II: James O'Gara to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Julie Myers to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; Emilio Gonzales to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, to markup the following nominations:

1. William F. Tuerk, Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, VA.

2. Robert J. Henke, Assistant Secretary for Management, VA.

3. John M. Molino, Assistant Secretary of Policy and Planning, VA.

4. Lisette M. Mondello, Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, VA.

5. George J. Opfer, Inspector General, VA.

The markup will take place in the Reception Room off the Senate Floor, the Capitol following the first rollcall vote of the Senate after 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk to the substitute be agreed to, the committee substitute now as amended be agreed to, and it be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, with no points of order waived by virtue of this agreement.

Mr. President, it is with pleasure that I rise, after 2\1/ 2\ months of waiting, to introduce the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, and related agencies fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. My invaluable partner, the distinguished Senator from Washington, is being held up by airline delays, something that most of us in this body are acquainted with, so I will go ahead and present my opening statement and open the floor for business and reserve her time until she is able to get here.

This bill is the first real appropriations product of a brand-new subcommittee that grew out of the reorganization of the Senate Appropriations Committee from earlier this year. It is a substantial and complex bill that will have a significant and, we hope, positive impact on every State and community in this Nation, as it covers, among other things, every mode of transportation, financial services, and IRS requirements, as guided by the Department of Treasury, the Federal responsibility for housing and economic development under HUD, as well as the funding for the executive office of the President, for the Federal judicial system, and for other related agencies, such as GSA, OPM, and the Postal Service.

My view is that this is a good product, as good a product as we could have produced given the circumstances in our allocation. I give tremendous credit and thanks to my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Murray, for her hard work, dedication, and commitment to working with me in a bipartisan manner to craft this legislation. As I said, this is a brand-new bill for us, for our staffs, and for this body to consider. I think it is a good bill and that is due, in no small part, because of the participation of Senator Murray and her partnership with me in the legislative process. I look forward to working with her through conference and final passage.

We started with a budget that severely underfunded many of the important programs in this bill. These are programs that historically have been supported in large numbers by the Members this body. Thankfully, in most cases we have been able to restore many of the cuts and shortfalls, and for that we especially thank Chairman Cochran and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who demonstrated their understanding and sensitivity to the needs of the Transportation-Treasury appropriations subcommittee. Without Chairman Cochran's help and Senator Byrd's acquiescence, we would have been unable to meet the funding needs of most of our programs, as well as Members' priorities. This bill as well is within our section 302(b) allocation of $65.819 billion of budget authority and $122.064 billion in outlays.

In particular, despite our fiscal limitations, we worked diligently to ensure that transportation programs in this bill are adequately funded. One of our highest priorities in fashioning the bill was to meet the Federal responsibilities to provide funding for the safety, construction, and maintenance of our highways, transit systems, and airports. Funding of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and especially for our highway and road network, creates jobs and promotes economic growth. More importantly, it

guarantees the continued growth of our economic infrastructure by which we serve our markets throughout the Nation and ultimately the world. Our transportation system, the system that brought our country together in the 19th century, is still the heart and the arteries by which we pump our goods and products, which guarantees our current and future prosperity in the national and international marketplace. We cannot afford to shortchange this system.

Moreover, the delay in passing the surface transportation authorization, SAFETEA, made it difficult to recommend funding for the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. I will not go into reasons for the delay in that, having had a hand in that operation, as has the occupant of the chair. He and I both did. In many cases, the committee funding levels for this bill were based on our best guess on how a program would fare in the authorization process.

Some guesses were better than others.

Clearly, a number of changes will have to be made to this appropriations bill to be more consistent with safety. I am exited to be addressing these issues in conference.

Next, the bill provides $14.78 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. This is approximately $400 million more than the request. The recommendation includes $14.3 million to hire safety inspectors and to accelerate restoring the inspector staffing level. It also adds $4 million to restore engineering and inspector staffing at the Office of Certification so that new equipment and technologies can be approved for use in aviation and so that our Nation can retain leadership in aviation.

I am pleased to announce that the bill does not cut the Airport Improvement Program by $500 million as proposed in the budget request. Also, on the good news side, we have been able to fund Amtrak at $1.45 billion while taking some incremental steps to reform how Amtrak conducts its business. These reforms include enforcement of a prohibition currently in law that prohibits Amtrak from subsidizing losses from its food and beverage service. Most people can't believe it when we tell them that Amtrak currently spends $2 for every $1 received for food and beverage service. We can no longer afford to pay for that luxury while failing to address the operational shortfall and serve infrastructure needs in the Northeast corridor.

This bill also authorizes Amtrak to impose a Federal surcharge on tickets to address infrastructure needs. This surcharge will only go into effect upon a finding by Amtrak that such surcharges would not depress ticket sales.

Finally, we would allow Amtrak to establish assessments on commuter rail authorities for their use of Amtrak-owned rail segments as another way to begin addressing the capital needs of the Northeast corridor.

These are modest but we believe very significant attempts to offset some of the costs that we cannot and should not provide.

I am also very supportive of the efforts of Senator Stevens and Senator Lott to move a comprehensive Amtrak reform bill through the Commerce Committee that will balance the funding needs for all Amtrak rail service.

We hope our modest attempts to offset certain costs can be seen as a stepping stone to the Commerce Committee's reform bill. There is one major disappointment in this operation, however, and that is the administration's posture on Amtrak funding and reform. The administration has threatened to veto this bill if the Amtrak funding level of $1.45 billion is maintained without substantial reform.

I have no problem with reform and indeed recognize its need. But the sad fact is, the administration has failed to provide adequate guidance and/or leadership on this issue. Even more troubling is the administration's position that even were adequate reform to be proposed, OMB would not provide the budget amendment to supplement the $360 million recommended in the administration's 2006 budget, and $360 million is likely not even enough to support the cost of bankruptcy for Amtrak which would be a tremendously costly financial and economic burden to the Nation and send Amtrak into chaos and great consternation for the people throughout the Nation.

For the Department of Treasury, the bill provides about $11.7 billion for fiscal year 2006. This amount is about $50 million above the budget request and some $475 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

To help fight the war on terrorism, we have provided full funding for the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. I strongly support Treasury's antiterrorism efforts. I commend them on it because I believe this is a vital and unique role in cutting off financial assistance to terrorist organizations, and without that assistance they will not be nearly as robust, and they will not provide nearly the challenge to our safety and security that they would were we not able to cut off these ties.

There has been a lot of talk and Members here and people across the country are concerned about the so-called ``tax gap''--the difference between what is actually collected and what is owed. To help close that gap we continue providing for taxpayer services. We have provided $10.7 billion for the IRS, including $6.9 billion for tax enforcement activities. This amount is $443 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

These additional funds will help ensure that there will be less fraud and that honest taxpayers will have a greater level of confidence in our tax system. If average citizens do not believe others are paying what they owe, there is much less incentive to do the right thing and pay the taxes that are owed.

We provided full funding for IRS's modernization efforts through its business system modernization program. Currently, this program is IRS's highest management and administrative priority.

Turning to the Federal judiciary, the bill includes a total appropriation of $5.8 billion which is a 6.5-percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This represents the funding necessary to meet the judiciary's fiscal year 2006 funding needs.

For HUD, the bill provides some $30.6 billion for fiscal year 2006, an increase of $5.6 billion over the request for Housing and Urban Development activities. These additional funds include almost $4.35 billion for the Community Development Fund and the CDBG which was slated for elimination through a reduction of over 30 percent of the funding, and consolidation and submersion of the activities along with other programs into a new grant program within the Department of Commerce which, in my view, does not have the expertise and should not be involved in Housing and Urban Development's very well connected activities.

This bill also reduces a proposed rescission of ``excess'' section 8 funds from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion. Neither HUD nor the Office of Management and Budget, when called before our committee, could identify the rescission source. We asked them: Where is the money coming from? They said: Well, we do not know, but it has been there in the past.

I explained to them that our Appropriations Committee had worked with HUD and OMB to change the manner of allocating HUD section 8 funds so there would not be that amount left over. Nevertheless, they chose to ignore that process in which they had been deeply involved, and asking for $2.5 billion when we don't see any evidence that they know it is there would result in cuts to priority programs, such as programs for the homeless, section 202 housing for the elderly, housing for people with AIDS, public housing, and the very important home program that gives local governments the resources to make housing-targeted investments in their own community.

In addition, I am happy to report that we have adequately funded almost all HUD programs at a minimum of last year's level, which is generally higher than the request.

Moving next to the Executive Office of the President, we basically funded them at the request level, acceding to their request to merge the Office of Policy Development into the White House Office Salaries and Expenses Account as the administration requested.

We have also fully funded the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at $227 million despite the budget

request which would have funded it at $100 million in the Department of Justice.

My colleagues and I know from listening to law enforcement personnel in our States that this has been a critically important program which has been successful throughout the Nation in helping to root out and eradicate methamphetamine production, marijuana and ecstasy use, as well as heroin and cocaine importation. This program was especially important in Missouri where methamphetamine production and use has reached almost epidemic proportions. It absolutely affects and taints every community in this Nation, no matter how large or how small. The toll of methamphetamine production, distribution, use, and addiction is something that Missouri has found much to our distress as we have become one of the leaders in its use, and the Nation has a far too high price to pay in human terms as well as in economic terms.

Finally, we are facing a crisis precipitated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. The extent of the damage and human tragedy in New Orleans and parts of Louisiana because of these hurricanes is virtually unprecedented in the history of natural disasters in our Nation.

While there is much to be done, I am optimistic and confident that the Nation will do what is necessary to overcome this tragedy.

I am hopeful that Members will wait until the coming Katrina and Rita supplemental to offer amendments. A piecemeal approach on different appropriations bills is not the way to go. I understand the urge to want to do something immediately, but we learned a lot of lessons in New York from 9/11 and previous natural disasters, and we need to apply those lessons carefully, consistently, and in a comprehensive manner to New Orleans, to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

What we need first is a fully functioning FEMA with leadership and adequate resources. I believe the administration is taking the needed steps to reach that goal. While there are still things needing to be done, FEMA has all the necessary authority and funding to meet all the current initial needs. FEMA has the know-how and the people on the ground. It is slow going, no doubt, but it is beginning to work. Once the initial assessment is complete, then and only then is the time to add additional necessary funding and the needed authorities for other Federal agencies to help the Katrina-Rita recovery efforts.

For example, this means education assistance to ensure available, good educational opportunities and continuity in that education. It means any needed unemployment assistance and job creation initiatives as we rebuild the New Orleans area. It means housing vouchers and other housing assistance options. It means establishing new entities such as a local public benefit corporation similar to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation which was created in the aftermath of 9/11 as a way to rebuild Manhattan. It means rebuilding roads and much of the transportation infrastructure. It means special health care assistance. And it means EPA environmental contamination assistance to complete the cleanup of the disaster area.

I think we also need to look closely at how best to rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding parishes. As we have long known--especially now that Katrina and Rita have delivered such a devastating wake-up blow--much of New Orleans is below sea level and likely will remain exposed and vulnerable to some level of annual flooding, to the type of horrific damage and loss of life that was caused by Katrina and Rita.

I do not think it is enough just to build stronger and bigger levees. The plan must be more thoughtful, and we will need to ensure that the poorest households, including those who live in public and assisted housing, are not just relocated to the most risky neighborhoods. In fact, we must think hard about whether to rebuild many of the neighborhoods most at risk of hurricane damage and flooding.

I also strongly urge that any rebuilding plans try to ensure those persons and families who have been displaced by Katrina and Rita are given an opportunity to rebuild their communities and a right of first refusal to any housing that is rebuilt. However, let me emphasize that this is not the right bill on which to rush to create and fund new programs. There will be another supplemental in the next week or so, and that bill is the appropriate vehicle in which to seek funding and establish new programs as appropriate.

I understand everyone wants to help and to do what is right. However, we must proceed thoughtfully. We need to work together based on knowledge and need.

As for the progress on this bill, I understand from the leadership that they are looking for a vote that would be held at 5:30. We are preparing to offer that amendment.

I make a particular point to my colleagues and staff who are listening that we are open for business. This bill has been hanging out there since mid-July. People have had an opportunity to look at it. I hope Members with well-crafted, relevant amendments will come forward in order to get this bill completed without further disruption to the vital entities and activities we fund. We would like to finish it, if possible, by Wednesday night. At this juncture we do not know how many amendments will be offered. I ask all staff involved to let the majority and minority staff know what amendments Members are planning to propose, when Members are planning to propose them. We will work with you. If they are ones we can accept, we would like to do that.

It is imperative to continue the activities not just of the Treasury and other governmental agencies but for Transportation, for Housing and Urban Development, to move forward on this bill so they will know the funds are available.

Amendment No. 2061

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I understand there is a previous order and a vote will occur at 5:30. Has that agreement been reached?

We will hope to set that time as soon as we get concurrence from the leadership on both sides.

With that, I will explain briefly what this amendment does. It revises section 421 of the Housing and Community Act of 1987 to clarify HUD's authority to recover any assets or income of a multifamily project where those funds are used in violation of the project's regulatory agreement.

This provision is intended to ensure that HUD and the Federal Government can recover losses from owners of multifamily housing who have intentionally and fraudulently skimmed equity from an FHA-insured project for their own benefit. Without this technical correction, HUD ends up paying the lender the value of a defaulted FHA-insured mortgage that should have been paid off by the owner of a multihousing project out of rent receipts. Too often, the FHA or, more specifically, the pockets of the taxpayers of the United States fund the loss.

In the year 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an unpublished decision in United States v. Crosswinds which effectively holds that the U.S. Government may only bring actions to recover assets used in violation of a regulatory agreement if HUD holds or insures the mortgage covering the multifamily project both at the time of the

regulatory agreement violation and at the time that recovery action is filed in district court.

As a practical matter, HUD often disposes of a property or a mortgage long after it has an opportunity to act on an owner's misuse of property assets by equity skimming. This makes the current statute essentially a nullity, with a practical consequence that HUD is unable to pursue a recovery of assets no matter how abusive an owner has been.

That was never the intent of the statute. With this amendment we are revising the section in accordance with the original intent of the legislation. Without this authority, HUD and the Department of Justice have limited or no ability to recover assets from owners who have intentionally defrauded the Government by pocketing funds that are derived from rents paid by tenants and intended to be used to pay the outstanding obligation on an FHA-insured mortgage.

I will wait for a leadership agreement and at that time I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. For the information of our colleagues, we were initially advised that timeframe would be 5:30, so that is the timeframe we are working out, but we are still waiting to hear from the leadership.

I yield the floor.

We reserved time.

No objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what my colleague from North Dakota has just talked about is one of the mind-boggling events that has all of us not only stumped but outraged. I believe it is long past due that we get tight control over how the money is being spent.

As we talk about the need to offset moneys going to the disaster, the first place we ought to look is money that might otherwise be wasted. So I believe that while there is going to be a significant Federal investment, it needs to be refined, targeted, and managed effectively so we will not see examples of this, the rental of cruise ships and other items that make no sense.

Now, Mr. President, I believe this request has been cleared by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Bond amendment No. 2061, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague and good partner very much for her kind words.

Surely this bill was an interesting and challenging bill because it brought so many new agencies together. The Senator from Washington has had much greater experience in the Transportation appropriations area. Her input in that area and all the other areas was invaluable. I share her views that this is a good bill. As I stated earlier, I hope we will come forward with amendments as soon as possible.

I know the Senator probably watched, as I did, the Seahawks' magnificent victory yesterday--truly awesome. As far as the Cardinals, Chris Carpenter pitches tonight and there is hope. So there is still a smile on my face. We are both in a good mood. If you wish to have amendments favorably reviewed, please come, bring them down. Even if my Cardinals continue to win, as it gets later in the week we will be getting short of time and short of patience. So we will very much appreciate having those amendments now.

For the information of all my colleagues we hope are watching, there will be a vote at 5:30. This is a vote that is on a technical change in the underlying legislation to allow the Federal Government to recapture funds from a multifamily housing project owner who skims rent off the project and leaves the project in default to be paid for out of FHA funds, out of public funds, and thus pockets the rents.

This is a situation that was certainly not foreseen. It is a very undesirable situation where, in effect, the money from the taxpayer is going indirectly into the pockets of an owner of a project who has taken rent money instead of applying it to the mortgage.

There is a vote at 5:30. We hope Members will come forward with their amendments. I hope we can wrap up these amendments by Wednesday night to get ready for the World Series, for whosoever happens to be in it at the time. I still have my hopes.

I see no other Member seeking the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as my colleague and comanager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, has just stated, we are preparing to vote on an amendment that is a technical correction to the Housing and Community Act of 1987 to make sure that HUD has the authority to recover any assets or income for a multifamily project where the funds are used in violation of the project's regulatory agreement. It is necessary to ensure that HUD and the Federal Government can recover losses from owners of multifamily housing who have intentionally and fraudulently skimmed equity from an FHA-insured project for their own benefit. Without this technical correction, HUD, FHA, ends up paying the lender the value of a defaulted FHA-insured mortgage that should have been paid off by the owner of the multifamily housing out of rent receipts. I hope my colleagues will look at it and see this is nothing but common sense and adopt it.

At the same time, I reiterate for those who may be listening, we want to move forward on this bill as quickly as possible. We hope people who have amendments will come forward. We are

looking for an agreement to take up the DC appropriations bill which has to be added to this to go to conference. It will be a separate conference, but since the House has DC in with the HUD bill, they will have to be considered at once. We ask that everybody bring forth those amendments and be prepared for a filing deadline tomorrow.

Mr. President, I see the time for the vote on the amendment has arrived, and I suggest we proceed to that vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are negotiating to get an agreement on procedure for tomorrow. We are very close. We want to line up the DC bill and then set a vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to keep this quorum call going, and then, after I propound the unanimous consent request, obviously the Senate can proceed in the normal fashion. This should be just a minute. I ask the Senator's indulgence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, after conferring with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. tomorrow, Senator Brownback be recognized in order to offer an amendment which relates to the appropriations for the District of Columbia; provided further that there then be 40 minutes equally divided between Senators Brownback and Landrieu; further, that following that debate, the amendment be agreed to with no second degrees in order to the amendment; provided that at 12:10, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 2062, with no second degrees in order to that amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding Naval Officer, Commander Kevin Brennan, who has served so admirably and faithfully as a liaison to our Appropriations Committee on Defense. I want to recognize his superb service to our Nation and the Navy as he leaves our Nation's Capital to take command of an operational aviation squadron.

On behalf of my colleagues on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated and faithful service in pursuing the best for our men and women of the Navy.

As the Navy's primary appropriations matters liaison for aviation and weapons matters, Kevin has been an invaluable asset for the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, as well as a wealth of knowledge for my personal staff over the past 3\1/2\ years.

In addition to providing timely and accurate information on budget matters and emerging war fighting requirements, CDR Brennan has personally escorted my staff and the subcommittee professional staff on numerous trips to review military operations and confirm the health and welfare of our troops, on the front lines as well as when they return home from action. He provided keen insight on matters of national security and naval aviation's current readiness status, and the direct relationship between the two. His perspective on the needs of the Nation with respect to our sea service has provided me with the clarity and detail I needed to make important decisions regarding appropriations for the Department of Defense in pursuing the Nation's global war on terrorism.

In addition to the respect for the work Commander Brennan did in representing the Navy, I would like to thank him for his congenial demeanor and great sense of humor that he shared with all of us. It is his same sense of purpose and professionalism that I am confident will enable him to be a tremendous role model for those who serve under his command.

It is my honor to recognize Commander Brennan for his distinguished service to our Nation. My wife Lynda and I have the highest respect for those who serve in uniform, and I appreciate and honor all the men and women who have served in the defense of freedom. Recalling our national anthem, to our veterans and Armed Forces, I say, we would not be ``the land of the free'' if we were not also `` the home of the brave.''

In closing, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in expressing our deep appreciation for the numerous contributions Commander Brennan has made on behalf of our Navy. We wish Kevin, his lovely wife Pamela and their four children continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``Fair winds and following seas'' as he closes out his service to the Congress and continues toward the pinnacle of Naval service, command at sea! BRAVO ZULU shipmate!

Mr. President, among the great responsibilities and privileges of being a Member of the U.S. Senate is assessing the qualifications and voting on the confirmation of members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Reflecting upon this vote, one gets a sense of the weight of the responsibility--we will be voting on a replacement for only the 17th Chief Justice in the history of our great country.

But this vote is not unique because of its infrequency but because of its place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is the final voice in the land on the meaning of the words of the Constitution as they apply to the extent of the rights guaranteed to individuals by the document. It is the final word on the demarcation of power between the legislative and executive branch of government and it is the voice on defining the power reserved for the Federal Government and the governments of the individual States.

As a member of the legislative branch of our national government who was in a former life a State Governor, I am acutely aware of the importance of these lines and the consequences when they are breached. As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning legislative acts that I support but I frequently work with my colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in state affairs. As a Governor attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through the burdens placed in my way by an intrusive Federal Government.

The judicial branch of our government, most notably the Supreme Court, has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to maintain these divisions of power and law making.

So it is a great privilege and responsibility to have a role in confirming people who will occupy a place on the court. In this case, confirming the person that will lead that court.

After observing Judge Roberts during 3 days of hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and capable hands. First, throughout this strenuous session, Judge Roberts' intelligence, patience and temperament were on full display and were nothing short of extraordinary.

But it was that which he had to say that satisfies me and secures my vote for his confirmation.

He made a convincing case through his words and his demeanor that he will approach his responsibility with modesty and humility, which means approaching cases with an open mind and carefully studying the words of Congress or the precedents of the Court on constitutional questions. As Judge Roberts said and I agree, ``a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges . . . are servants of the law, not the other way around.''

Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not a politician. In that statement, I am comforted. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes. Rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the constitution and the rule of law will be his guide.

Judge Roberts made the case that he recognizes that the authority on the division of power between the branches of government and the authority on the division of power in our federalist system of government are contained in the Constitution.

It is a positive thing that we are going to confirm a decent person for the Court, but that should not be our guiding principle. Our vote should not rest on whether a future judge will approach cases as a father or a son, on the side of the weak or the strong or with the intent to expand rights or protections. That subjects judicial decision making to subjective standards, compromises impartiality and removes the blinders from justice. Some have argued that this is to dodge a question. Rather, it is an indication that one recognizes that the obligation of the judge is to follow the Constitution rather than his own interests.

At one point during the proceedings, the Judge was prodded to comment on a case in which he participated to decide the extent of benefits available under a health plan. To limit or expand the benefits provided under a statute is the job of a legislature, not a judge. Judge Roberts agrees with this important principal. As he stated. ``As far as a Judge is concerned, they have to decide questions according to the rule of law, not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences, but according to the rule of law.''

If the support of a majority of a State or national legislature can be won, a statute can be changed and this concern addressed. I suspect that many of my colleagues, particularly those who will vote against this nomination, have come to rely on the judiciary to advance changes that have no support in legislatures. Hence, their frustration with Judge Roberts. He has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature and they do not appear to be blurred. He has not shown a willingness to approach case guided by a point of view or a subjective standard--that is what is to motivate legislators as they debate on the campaign trail and the floors of congress and statehouses across the country.

But as Judge Roberts again put it so well, ``If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and said, `Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to the judges.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind.''

As did the Founders, I do not believe State and national legislative bodies are incapable of settling tough and contious issues. I do not believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions from the public realm because they are divisive. Roberts has shown the modesty and respect for the role of the court and an legislature to refrain from that path.

Judge Roberts has also made it clear that he finds no place for reflection on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the consideration of constitutional questions. They do not offer any guidance as to the words of our constitution.

During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is very consistent with that of my own.

Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many distinguished and qualified attorneys an judges in the country to serve on our Nation's highest court. After responsible consultation with members of the Senate and careful and thoughtful deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John Roberts. As we have learned, his qualifications to lead the Supreme Court and Federal judiciary are as unquestioned as they are impressive.

President Bush was reelected with over 62 million votes, the highest received by a presidential candidate. He is the first candidate in 16 years to win a majority of the popular vote, something not achieved by his predecessor, who incidentally won easy confirmation of both of his appointments to the high court.

President Bush resoundingly won the right to nominate someone who he views as fit to serve on the Supreme Court and he won the right to have that nominee considered fairly and impartially. The President also asked for the thoughts and advice of Members of this body as to the pending nomination. When it came time to exercise his responsibility as President, he did so by nominating someone with an impeccable record and extraordinary qualifications. In the execution of his duties, President Bush exceeded any standard to which he should be held.

Nonetheless, I suspect that this nomination and the subsequent nomination will not be treated in the manner that President Clinton's nominees were treated, when they received 96 votes. But it should as should the next nominee.

Judge Roberts is an outstanding nomination. He will get my support and he deserves the overwhelming support of this body.